HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » NSA says it has no record...

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 05:45 PM

 

NSA says it has no record of Snowden challenging spying

By Julian Hattem - 06/25/14 02:54 PM EDT

The National Security Agency says it has not been able to find a single recorded case where former contractor Edward Snowen raised complaints about the agency’s operations.

The claim, revealed in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from investigative reporter Jason Leopold, undercuts Snowden’s claim that he raised concerns with his superiors before leaking top-secret spy agency documents to the press.


“A thorough search of our files was conducted, but there are no documents indicating that Mr. Snowden contacted agency officials to raise concerns about NSA programs,” the agency said in a response to the journalist.

Critics of Snowden say that his seeming decision to take top-secret documents to the press before raising concerns with his NSA bosses refutes supporters’ claims that he is a whistleblower trying to expose an over-aggressive government.

<...>

The agency released one email Snowden sent to the general counsel’s office last April, but that message seemed to be little more than a request for clarification about recent training.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/210570-nsa-no-documents-of-snowden-complaints




Snowden email fell short of NSA criticism

By Julian Hattem

In an email sent to top lawyers at the National Security Agency a month before leaving the agency, former contractor Edward Snowden questioned the agency’s legal rationale but did not formally denounce its operations.

The April 5, 2013, email released by the spy agency on Thursday showed Snowden merely asking for clarification about a recent training course he had taken.

The message falls short of an objection to the agency’s procedures and operations, however, and may not satisfy Snowden’s supporters looking for proof that he had no other option but to go to the press.


After a mandatory training course about an agency directive that prohibits collecting information about Americans, Snowden asked NSA lawyers to clarify the hierarchy of government legal documents. At the top he listed the U.S. Constitution, followed by federal statutes and presidential executive orders, then Pentagon and Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) regulations and, at the bottom, directives and policies from the NSA.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10025020097

165 replies, 11249 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 165 replies Author Time Post
Reply NSA says it has no record of Snowden challenging spying (Original post)
Cali_Democrat Jun 2014 OP
MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #1
gratuitous Jun 2014 #4
G_j Jun 2014 #6
Cali_Democrat Jun 2014 #5
former9thward Jun 2014 #18
Cali_Democrat Jun 2014 #20
kelliekat44 Jun 2014 #31
former9thward Jun 2014 #37
AngryAmish Jun 2014 #86
spin Jun 2014 #110
randome Jun 2014 #125
blm Jun 2014 #32
former9thward Jun 2014 #36
blm Jun 2014 #40
former9thward Jun 2014 #41
blm Jun 2014 #42
MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #47
uponit7771 Jun 2014 #57
MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #63
DCBob Jun 2014 #92
MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #104
brush Jun 2014 #133
Cali_Democrat Jun 2014 #85
MADem Jun 2014 #54
SidDithers Jun 2014 #45
DCBob Jun 2014 #93
The Traveler Jun 2014 #103
Historic NY Jun 2014 #2
grasswire Jun 2014 #9
JI7 Jun 2014 #11
Fla Dem Jun 2014 #113
JI7 Jun 2014 #3
grasswire Jun 2014 #10
MohRokTah Jun 2014 #13
grasswire Jun 2014 #26
MohRokTah Jun 2014 #28
Cha Jun 2014 #35
uponit7771 Jun 2014 #59
Cha Jun 2014 #38
Katashi_itto Jun 2014 #7
LiberalArkie Jun 2014 #8
MohRokTah Jun 2014 #14
grasswire Jun 2014 #27
MohRokTah Jun 2014 #30
uponit7771 Jun 2014 #67
VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #105
randome Jun 2014 #12
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #16
randome Jun 2014 #21
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #24
MADem Jun 2014 #61
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #65
MADem Jun 2014 #71
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #73
MADem Jun 2014 #75
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #76
MADem Jun 2014 #87
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #94
MADem Jun 2014 #117
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #118
randome Jun 2014 #121
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #132
randome Jun 2014 #136
MADem Jun 2014 #144
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #146
MADem Jun 2014 #147
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #150
Andy823 Jun 2014 #34
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #39
NCTraveler Jun 2014 #95
Andy823 Jun 2014 #120
Andy823 Jun 2014 #119
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #15
randome Jun 2014 #17
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #22
randome Jun 2014 #25
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #29
randome Jun 2014 #43
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #44
randome Jun 2014 #46
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #50
randome Jun 2014 #53
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #60
randome Jun 2014 #64
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #66
randome Jun 2014 #68
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #70
grasswire Jun 2014 #116
randome Jun 2014 #123
grasswire Jun 2014 #129
randome Jun 2014 #131
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #135
randome Jun 2014 #138
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #139
NanceGreggs Jun 2014 #48
randome Jun 2014 #58
NanceGreggs Jun 2014 #72
MADem Jun 2014 #89
VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #107
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #109
VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #111
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #112
VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #114
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #115
VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #141
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #142
VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #156
MADem Jun 2014 #88
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #90
MADem Jun 2014 #145
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #148
MADem Jun 2014 #149
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #152
MADem Jun 2014 #153
NCTraveler Jun 2014 #96
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #97
NCTraveler Jun 2014 #99
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #100
Warren Stupidity Jun 2014 #106
randome Jun 2014 #130
Gravitycollapse Jun 2014 #137
randome Jun 2014 #140
Mojorabbit Jun 2014 #143
randome Jun 2014 #155
Enrique Jun 2014 #19
Octafish Jun 2014 #23
Rosa Luxemburg Jun 2014 #55
Rex Jun 2014 #78
riderinthestorm Jun 2014 #33
NanceGreggs Jun 2014 #49
Logical Jun 2014 #62
RKP5637 Jun 2014 #51
Blue_Tires Jun 2014 #52
Cha Jun 2014 #82
Agnosticsherbet Jun 2014 #56
L0oniX Jun 2014 #69
elias49 Jun 2014 #74
msanthrope Jun 2014 #98
Skip Intro Jun 2014 #77
NanceGreggs Jun 2014 #80
Cha Jun 2014 #83
Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2014 #79
Number23 Jun 2014 #81
Pholus Jun 2014 #84
NCTraveler Jun 2014 #91
Andy823 Jun 2014 #122
Zen Democrat Jun 2014 #101
Stargazer09 Jun 2014 #102
MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #108
Andy823 Jun 2014 #124
MannyGoldstein Jun 2014 #126
randome Jun 2014 #127
Andy823 Jun 2014 #162
cantbeserious Jun 2014 #128
hughee99 Jun 2014 #134
stevenleser Jun 2014 #163
hughee99 Jun 2014 #164
stevenleser Jun 2014 #165
DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2014 #151
bobGandolf Jun 2014 #154
TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #157
woo me with science Jun 2014 #158
stevenleser Jun 2014 #159
Taitertots Jun 2014 #160
99Forever Jun 2014 #161

Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 06:04 PM

1. "And *this* time, we're telling the truth"

 

"No, honest. Stop laughing, you sound silly."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 06:13 PM

4. I'll go with the Martin Luther quote

It's apocryphal, but a young Martin Luther (before the 95 theses) did a penance obligation, climbing a set of stairs, stopping at each step to say a prayer for the remittance of sins for a departed soul. According to dogma, this could shave off some time in purgatory and hasten a soul's ascension into heaven. Luther dutifully mounted the stairs, saying the prescribed prayer on each riser, and when he reached the top, is said to have pondered aloud, "But who knows whether it is so?"

Which probably makes me one of hated Purity Brigade members, baselessly distrustful of our intelligence agencies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 06:20 PM

6. "But who knows whether it is so?"

exactly..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 06:16 PM

5. Snowden, the master hacking genius, couldn't even save a single email?

 

He was able to copy massive amounts of data to a thumb drive, but he didn't have the foresight to save a single email which would have vindicated him and proved that he did indeed raise concerns as a whistleblower?

Kinda odd, no?

I work in information technology and I work with large, complex systems. Shit can go wrong in a millisecond. Email is everything and you better use it to cover your ass. I learned that as soon as I got my first job out of college.

Snowden ain't the sharpest tool in the shed.

Either that, or the more likely scenario....these emails don't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:29 PM

18. Maybe they were on the IRS hard drives.

It seems these agencies have a lot of problems finding troublesome emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:35 PM

20. So you're buying the GOP line that the IRS intentionally lost those "troublesome" emails?

 

Nice slip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #20)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:47 PM

31. I think that was a joke? If not....we are worse than the GOP at this point. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #20)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 08:02 PM

37. What would the IRS say in the same situation when auditing a taxpayer?

No documents, You are guilty is what they would say. Your authoritarian slip is showing if you believe the NSA story. But not really a slip given your posts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #20)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 06:09 AM

86. No, it just.means if you believe the government you are a sucker

 

One is born every minute, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #86)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 02:57 PM

110. You can always believe your government. ...

It has your best interests at heart.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #86)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:29 PM

125. Did anyone say to believe in the government? Anyone?

 

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #18)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:48 PM

32. Why would emails from 2009-early2011 be 'troublesome' but emails from 2011-2012 be NOT troublesome

to an inquiry launched in May2012 that claimed RW groups were being targeted for scrutiny to prevent them from participating in the 2012 election?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #32)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:59 PM

36. You are very forgiving to the IRS.

They would not accept this explanation from a taxpayer they were auditing. They would tell them 'tough shit, you should have had a better back up system, you are guilty as charged'. But when it is them they get a pass. And if you believe the NSA would not lie then it is a hopeless conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #36)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 08:31 PM

40. That was a Bush appointee running it then. But, I asked you a simple question relevant to your post.

Seems to me you can't craft an answer and are looking to dodge it. One could see that as troublesome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #40)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 08:38 PM

41. When we know the full story I can give you an answer.

Much more to come I believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #41)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 08:47 PM

42. Seems easy enough. Why would 2009-early2011 emails lost be relevant to the case Issa was making?

The 2011 through 2012 emails were turned over. Anyone deliberately trying to destroy evidence in the case Issa was trying to make about the 2012 election, as has been implied here, would have destroyed the 2011 through 2012 emails. Yet those were all turned over. Gee - don't even want to try and explain for us little old dumb folks who can't see what YOU and Issa are seeing?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 09:48 PM

47. He was given unlimited access to *documents*

 

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/16/303733011/edward-snowden-from-geeky-drop-out-to-nsa-leaker

As a person who works with large, complex information systems, you'll know that access to a *file* server is different than access to a *mail* server.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #47)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:09 PM

57. Ummm manny....he can save the individual emails and even print them out for...

...latter use ...he can even forward them inside the organization to a trusted party....

There are no emails manny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #57)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:18 PM

63. That's all monitored, and he'd have no excuse if caught

 

Sounds like he had a fine excuse for downloading files.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #63)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 01:23 PM

92. So many excuses for the perp.

makes you wonder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #92)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 02:01 PM

104. It's very telling, don't you think? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #63)


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #47)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 06:02 AM

85. LOL

 

It doesn't matter what kind of server it's on. Why didn't he save it to the same thumb drive where he copied millions of docs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:06 PM

54. Yep...my horseshit meter is pegged, as well. He's either an idiot or a liar. Maybe both...? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 09:33 PM

45. And all Snowden has to do is produce a single e-mail to prove them wrong...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #45)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 01:24 PM

93. Yep, and he wont cause he aint got them

More proof this guy is total loser and liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 01:56 PM

103. I believe!

 

The intelligence and defense communities have never lied to us before, have they?



Trav

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 06:05 PM

2. They can't find anything & he can't produce anything....

interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 06:53 PM

9. we don't know that he can't produce anything

Many have been expecting him to drop the dime after NSA "could not find anything"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 06:59 PM

11. good point, its possible greenwald may be saving it for the movie also

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #9)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 03:56 PM

113. Been holding my breath since April when NSA first said they had no record of any

emails from Snowden regarding data collection. I can't hold it much longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 06:07 PM

3. the question about training being used as evidence still makes me laugh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 06:56 PM

10. It wasn't a question about training.

And it is disingenuous for Cali Democrat to quote that mischaracterization yet again after so many posts on DU have set the matter straight.

It was a legal question. Does an EO take precendence over the law? It was a canny and strategic question.

Snowden's critics can continue to spin and tee hee 'til the cows come home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:15 PM

13. Yes, it was a question about training. Read the email. eom

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:44 PM

26. and here I thought you were smarter than this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #26)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:46 PM

28. Huh

 

I thought you were intelligent enough to understand written English.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:58 PM

35. Immediately that poster goes to a personal insult because he has

Zero Zilch Nada.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #35)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:11 PM

59. this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 08:09 PM

38. The Question about Training..



snip//

"The email, dated April 5, 2013, which was sent shortly before Snowden departed Hawaii for Hong Kong and released thousands of NSA documents to journalists, asks a question about the agency’s mandatory USSID 18 training and Executive Orders — orders that come from the president.

In his email, Snowden asked about the hierarchy for such presidential orders, asking whether these have the same precedence as law.

“My understanding is that EOs may be superseded by federal statute, but EOs may not override statute. Am I correct in this?” he wrote. He also wanted to know which of Department of Defense regulations and regulations from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have greater precedence."

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/snowden-email-to-nsa/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 06:21 PM

7. Lol!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 06:48 PM

8. If he sent it from the work email system, probably exchange server

the no copy would have been on his computer, only on the exchange server. If he sent it from a personal account, that might be different, but where I used to work, it was against the rules to use personal email accounts to discuss company business.
Thus deleting all proof that he had ever sent an email would be simply deleting it from the server and accidentally reusing the backup tapes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:17 PM

14. But not saving it locally is counter to everything Snowden says and does.

 

I guarantee you, I save a local copy of every single email that would end up being a CYA if management ever acted incorrectly.

I NEVER send or receive an email from HR where I do not have a local copy at my disposal.

I GUARANTEE you, Snowden is lying about going to his superiors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:46 PM

27. I GUARANTEE you

Mark my words!

And so on.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:46 PM

30. I GUARANTEE you

 

There will never be any emails produced because Snowden lied.

If Snowden is not a liar, let him produce the emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #30)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:29 PM

67. Yeap

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #67)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 02:02 PM

105. take it to the bank

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:12 PM

12. Greenwald said he moved up his 'fireworks show' to the end of this month.

 

Not much time left, Glen! Show your cards!


That Snowden, though, he is the luckiest boy in the world.


Unfortunately, Caesar is not amused by these morons.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:26 PM

16. Do you think you could present your protest in a mature fashion?

Without the picture book style?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:36 PM

21. Not any longer.

 

It's been a year and still neither Snowden nor Greenwald have produced a 'smoking gun'. Only insinuations.

Those who still want to be 'believers' deserve only mockery from now on. Same as we would mock those who think the Moon landings were faked.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:39 PM

24. "Not any longer." - So maybe you should stop posting on the matter...

And let the rest of us, who are able to maintain a minimum level of maturity and tact, have a meaningful discussion and debate.

After all, this is a discussion board. Not a board where you get to spew mockery because you're frustrated with a specific subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #24)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:16 PM

61. Use IGNORE if it bugs you. Don't try to censor other people's speech with suggestions that it's

not sufficiently "mature" or "tactful." Everyone "discusses" in their own way on this board and you really shouldn't be lecturing people on how they're "allowed" to do it.

I think people who act like nitwits deserve to have "mockery" errr.. spewed... at them.



Frankly, Snowden has been talking out his ass, and so has Greenwald.

They need to put up or shut up and stop monetizing national security matters. I'm surprised Greenwald hasn't started selling "Secrets by the Piece."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #61)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:24 PM

65. Arguably, the person who tries to belittle the discussion is the censor.

Albeit, passive aggressively. What I'm saying is that contributing nothing at all is better than inhibiting the discussion.

If the debate is as frivolous as some suggest, why are they even bothering to respond at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #65)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:57 PM

71. The person who characterizes an opposing view as "belittling" could be called the censor, too.

See how that works? One person's "belittling" is another person's "clever riposte."

Where you stand depends on where you sit. You may regard a comment as frivolous while someone else sees it as a clever analogy.

You have options--IGNORE is a good one if you don't like hearing what a specific person has to say. Saying "I don't think your comments are serious enough for this conversation" is your right, but it makes it sound like you're trying to shut the person up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #71)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 11:14 PM

73. My argument is not one of relativity but exactly the opposite...

That what seems relative, and what is understandable only within the context of a two-sided agenda, is actually concrete and largely unchanging.

In other words, belittling is belittling regardless of your ideological stance. How you justify it is what might change but the underlying truth does not.

So, for instance, the argument that one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist doesn't mean that the subject must be both but instead that the fog of agenda makes people believe both are true in contradiction.

So, rather than trying to argue that disruption may actually be the opposite of itself, try to understand how it is exactly one thing. Not because it must but because it might.

Sometimes belittling is simply belittling. Similarly, there's nothing constructive about openly mocking, especially in such childish terms, the members of this board or Snowden or Greenwald. That is simply mockery. And don't confuse criticism with mockery. The two are not necessarily the same. I am criticizing the actions of a poster but I am not mocking them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #73)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 12:27 AM

75. When you tell someone that their argument isn't serious enough, you're belittling them.

One person's "disruption" is another person's "valid point" or "tangential-but-related issue."

And sometimes, mockery serves a larger purpose. I mock Dick Cheney routinely; I regard that mockery as "political speech." Dick, if he read my remarks, might call me a mocker or a belittler. I really don't care much what he thinks, though!

Like I said, where you stand depends on where you sit. This is a discussion board, everyone has their own style when it comes to "discussion."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #75)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 12:42 AM

76. I think people who mock Dick Cheney with all the cheeky names and "hilarious" images...

Are acting just as stupidly. I don't buy into such crazes anymore. Just like when Rude Pundit told the Cheney's to suck a dick and called Ann Coulter a c*nt. Or when people call George Bush a chimp.

It's mindless rallying. I don't care what Dick Cheney thinks of me. But that doesn't mean I need to turn him into a caricature. My contempt towards him comes from knowing what he did and what he believes. I don't need to amplify that through empty gestures.

Again, your relative argument has logical limits. There are obviously things which could be said that you would never endorse even if someone tried to argue it's just their "style."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #76)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 11:32 AM

87. Well, you can "not like it" all you want, but you can't censor it. That's not your charge.

And if you don't like "rallying," -- mindless is in the eye, if not the mind, of the beholder -- you're on the wrong website.

I don't care what Dick Cheney thinks of me, either--but I do care what I think of him. And I think he's a fucking asshole and I'll sing it from the highest rooftop.

Your argument has limits, too--"I don't like what you say and how you say it" is pretty weak sauce, there. "Everyone's stupid but MEEEEEE" doesn't cut it, either.

Of course there are things that I would not "endorse" -- that doesn't mean that I think the appropriate response to those arguments is "SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!!! YOU'RE STUPID!!!! YOU'RE MINDLESSLY RALLYING!!!!! SHUT UP!!!!!!!" That is--wrapped up in all those words you've been using--what you are saying, in essence.

Again, IGNORE is YOUR FRIEND. It beats trying to censor people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #87)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 01:27 PM

94. I don't think you understand what I am saying...

What I'm essentially saying is that embibing the conversation with adolescent insult, especially against members of this board, is not contributing to the discussion. It is diminishing it. And even the poster in question has admitted to doing just that. They do not see the legitimacy of the debate and they want it to end.

As I said, if you don't have something constructive to contribute, say nothing at all. I know that may seem ironic to you but that's because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Either that or you don't understand irony.

I don't think it is asking too much to not intentionally insult members of this board. In fact, that is mandated in the TOS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #94)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 06:06 PM

117. Criticizing the way people debate, instead of dealing with the substance of the objection,

doesn't contribute to it either.

See, you're doing it YET AGAIN!! That didactic tone, the snide remark, as though you're the teacher passing judgment on how "acceptable" people's posts are! You aren't the judge of what is a "constructive" contribution or not. You might not LIKE what others say, but that denigrating and rather smug tone is off-putting in the extreme. And it sure sounds like there's some "imbibing" going on, but not the kind you're trying to insinuate.

I agree that it isn't asking too much to not intentionally insult members of this board, and telling them that their comments suck or don't meet your particular standards of what you--and you ALONE--view as "constructive" is insulting in the extreme.

I think your overarching hubris prevents you from seeing that you ARE precisely what you're griping about, there!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #117)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 08:03 PM

118. You still don't get it. The person you're defending made it clear they aren't here to discuss...

They weren't here to debate. They were here, by their admission, to point out how unreal and silly the debate is. That is how this all started. Someone came into this thread insulting, among others, members of this board and that was all they were interested in doing.

You aren't the judge of what is a "constructive" contribution or not.


I absolutely am the judge of what is or is not constructive just as you are the judge as well. Whether or not we're allowed to take administrative action is another issue altogether. But what is the difference between telling ourselves a post is disruptive or rude and telling the poster? There isn't really any difference between the two beside your willingness to voice your opinion.

Again, I am not acting in the way that I'm talking about precisely because I am offering a constructive criticism of the poster's disruption and saying that he should either meaningfully engage in the discussion or move on. On a discussion board, that is the bare minimum we should expect of each other.

Now you can sit here if you want and continue to defend someone who has stated repeatedly that they are only here to disrupt. That's fine. But don't think that doing so grants you immunity from criticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #118)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:15 PM

121. Yes, and I 'insult' those who think the Moon landings were faked.

 

I 'insult' those who believe that Occupy will soon rule the world. And I 'insult' those who believe in the S&G sideshow.

Or I call it like I see it. It's called tough love. I have no dog in this show but it's depressing to see some of you embarass yourselves by believing anything S&G tell you.

You want everyone else to get up in arms about the NSA? Show us something beside vague insinuations.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #121)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:39 PM

132. You don't need to qualify your insults with quotation marks. You are insulting people.

Which is, in my eyes, different from "being insulted." Whereas being insulted implies you're offended, insulting someone is the act of debasing them intellectually, regardless of whether someone is injured by your rhetoric.

I too find conspiracy theories about the moon landing frustrating. But I consider the contempt I have for those who believe in such things a sort of plaque build-up in my mind which exists only because I am unable to thoroughly express myself. So, if I really scoff at someone, it is because I am acting rash.

I try not to legitimize rash behavior, even if it is the unavoidable response to nonsense. That is why I'm saying in here that your behavior is an illegitimate response even if you are frustrated with what you view as a lack of intelligence in the opposing view.

I have no dog in this show


I think that based solely on the observations of your actions in this thread, we can determine that simply isn't the case. If you didn't have any vested interest in the matter, you either wouldn't be here or you wouldn't be suggesting that we shouldn't believe ANYTHING Snowden or Greenwald say. That positions goes far beyond skepticism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #132)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:47 PM

136. You express yourself well but you're wrong.

 

Expressing my opinion that believing in The S&G Show (now entering it's second year!) is naive in the extreme is simply my opinion. And one that deserves to be heard. Because I certainly want to hear alternate opinions that make me re-evaluate my beliefs so I assume you do, too.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #118)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 04:03 AM

144. You keep doing it! And you wonder why people look askance at what you have to say!

No one said they were coming here with the purpose to disrupt--you made that up. I think calling out a bullshitter like ES or GG as a bullshitter is entirely constructive--you just don't like the POV, so you're getting shirty and criticizing the poster's "style" instead of refuting the content of the posts.

You can certainly pass judgment all you'd like, but your opinions will get short shrift if you keep up with the "I don't like the way you make your point" posts. You're coming off as someone who has failed to make a cogent refutation. Your criticism is most certainly NOT constructive, in fact, you avoid the essential issues entirely by focusing on tangential stuff that doesn't really matter. You can't respond to the assertions that Snowden should have made copies of the emails, he should have put them on a thumb drive, that all these big "fireworks" revelations haven't amounted to shit, so instead you whine about the way these points are presented. They're not "serious" enough for you, or whatever. Pfft!

Now, instead of speaking to those points, you're pointing a finger at ME and whining that I am "defending" someone who you and ONLY YOU say is "only here to disrupt." You say that like it is a fact, but it's not a fact--you invented that point. And then you make some lame argument that I'm not immune from criticism when you've done nothing but avoid the essential conversations in this thread, and instead focused entirely on personalities.

It's terribly obvious what you're doing--you're avoiding focusing on the substance, those key points that were made, quite clearly too, and griping about style to try to get away from having to explain why a guy who stole thousands of documents couldn't steal a few copies of his own goddamned emails. You're avoiding that point like the plague. It's visible from a country mile away, you see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #144)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 04:11 AM

146. I won't avoid the point at all, actually.

Your argument is actually quite sound ignoring the possibility of some exceptional circumstance or error on Snowden's part. Which points to the fact that Snowden may have lied. Confusing, indeed, based on the importance of his work.

I don't hero worship people. Maybe you've confused me with someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #146)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 04:15 AM

147. Those points I made are the points others made, upthread.

You didn't respond to their points; you simply critiqued their presentations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #147)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 04:29 AM

150. Maybe you have noticed that I place a lot of stock in how someone presents their arguments...

Not because I fear their points are being made ineffective through immaturity and insult, but because the very nature of their argumentation leads to ulterior motivations. They aren't interested, as Randome himself admitted, in taking the discussion seriously. I'm sure he'd be just as happy if the entire scandal disappeared this very moment.

Poof. Like it never happened. See, these people you're defending aren't interested in debate. They want the entire debate itself to evaporate.

Maybe you're the exception. And I would be more than willing to have the debate with you.

Now, the issue is, is there a reasonable explanation for why Snowden doesn't have copies of the emails?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:56 PM

34. No smoking gun

More like smoke and mirrors!

One thing I have to gives the GG Snow crowd the are loyal to their idols no matter what. Kind of like how they "claim" those who support the president are towards him. Funny thing is most people who they "claim" idolize the president have admitted they don't support everything he has done, but some odd reason the GG Snow crowd never, NEVER doubt their duo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Andy823 (Reply #34)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 08:15 PM

39. You realize your argument here is self-destructive, right?

You argue that there is no ubiquitous frivolity amongst critics of the leaks by making a frivolous argument. Well, I suppose your own personal attacks against the leakers and even members of this board don't necessarily demonstrate that such things are ubiquitous amongst critics of the leak. But they certainly don't help your case.

You've disqualified yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #39)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 01:28 PM

95. I read this from a duer awhile back.

 

"the person who tries to belittle the discussion is the censor."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #95)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:13 PM

120. What discussion

Anytime facts are presented that show Greenwald and Snowden for the phonies they really are one side, those who idolize the two, simply ignore all the facts and make excuses. That's not really a discussion. I think the two are really good at what they do, conning those gullible enough to believe they are some kind of heroes. I am still waiting for all the ground breaking information that will bring this country to it's knees, but then again I won't be holding my breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #39)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:07 PM

119. Maybe you missed the point

But then again I guess you pretty much proved if for me, so thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:24 PM

15. Why should I trust the agency to be truthful?

That's a serious question, by the way. Why do I have any incentive to believe the word of the agency over the word of Snowden?

They have a deeply vested interest in downplaying anything presented by Snowden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:29 PM

17. Snowden is an isolated loner who desperately wants to be a superhero.

 

Greenwald is an opportunist, plain and simple. I'm no longer willing to mince words about this: you should all be ashamed of yourselves for falling for this. There are far more important matters in the world deserving of our attention.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:36 PM

22. Again, construct your argument in a fashion that doesn't make it sound like grade school rumor.

After all, this is a very serious subject even if you don't agree with one side or the other. It deserves better than what you're currently contributing.

If you want to attack the validity of Snowden's work, do that rather than calling him and Greenwald childish names.

There are far more important matters in the world deserving of our attention.


A lot of important, intelligent people disagree you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #22)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:40 PM

25. It is NOT 'serious'. It's laughable.

 

There is not one single item -not one- that S&G have produced that 'proves' crap. It's all insinuations and suppositions. It's become embarrassing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:46 PM

29. That's a fairly outlandish argument.

Even by the standards of those opposed to the leaks, the usual concern is that the leaks don't prove anything NEW, not that they don't prove anything at all. There is also a concern about how the leaks compromise not only national security but the lives of individuals abroad, American and otherwise.

There's no doubt really about the existence of the collection programs of the NSA. The debate is over the matter of legality or ethics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 09:22 PM

43. No, the 'debate' is over whether or not the NSA spies on Americans.

 

Nothing that S&G have published has had anything to do with that. The only armament they bring to bear is insinuations that the NSA is spying on all of us. No proof. No evidence. They are just playing on your fears to keep themselves relevant.

And you fall for it every time.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #43)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 09:31 PM

44. Again, the debate is over the legality and ethics of metadata collection.

And whether or not that constitutes "spying" legally or ethically. Even the NSA does not deny such programs exist. They simply downplay the breadth of their vacuum. I'm not saying this simply because of Snowden's leaks. I say that with a well rounded understanding of the history of US clandestine government operations. There is no doubt that there is a historical capacity for Snowden's claims to be true. There's no real contradiction in believing the US government is capable of spying heavily on its own citizens. Arguably, based on the history, what's actually ridiculous is fervently not believing in such a possibility. That's the real fanaticism.

And you fall for it every time.


I like to pride myself on the ability to exist near to or outside the boundaries of ideological entrenchment. Therefore, I have no need to see Snowden as a hero or a villain just as I have no need to see the NSA as either heroic or evil. I have no desire to posture politically on the matter. It is within this realm that the real discussion regarding mass surveillance must exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #44)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 09:39 PM

46. 'Again' the debate is about metadata collection? First time you mentioned that in this thread.

 

Yes, the metadata collection has been going on for a long time. It has been known since 2006 or so. So what? Has anyone been harmed by this? Not one person. You want it stopped? Talk to Congress. Although it sounds like some of the circuit courts or whatever (and even Congress now) are trying to put a stop to it.

All this effort and worry over something that might someday be a danger to some unknown person or persons.

You know what you will have if this is stopped? A victory over an imaginary fear.

More power to you. I'm only pointing out that there are more real victories to be won. Phantom victories -'paper' victories, if you will- are not so impressive.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #46)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 09:58 PM

50. "Not one person." - How in the name of reason do you actually know that definitively?

I argue not that it could some day become a danger but that its very collection makes it a real and present danger at this VERY moment. There is no vague middle ground here.

The very nature of metadata collection makes it a corrupt process. Do you understand? The idea of privacy rights isn't just to protect us against a disjointed threat that may be associated with the violation of privacy. It is also to recognize that simply violating our privacy is itself a corrupt act. That invasion is injurious by its very nature.

Now, you may find more recent revelation about other potential spying programs untrue. But that is a lot different from saying the entire discussion surrounding this is illegitimate.

What is not up or debate at this point is the seriousness of the situation. That isn't up for debate. So when you say we should face "real" issues, you're just belittling your own argument. It's not constructive because it's not relevant anymore. The time for questioning the imminence of this topic has long since passed.

So, please, either do us the service of taking the discussion seriously or don't say anything at all. No one here is forcing you to say anything. If you don't want to participate, don't participate. But don't veil your agenda under this idea that you're trying to liberate us from the unreality or silliness of the debate. That's just disingenuous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #50)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:05 PM

53. My only 'agenda' is to stop from being depressed at others' gullibility.

 

And you're right, I can't prove a negative, which means the metadata collection is, to me, a big 'Meh'. Even Carl Bernstein said the NSA has strong safeguards in place to prevent abuse.

You don't need to take his word for anything but that's enough for me. And since this thread was initially about Snowden, I maintain that it's embarrassing for those who want to see him as some sort of superhero.

He's a lonely, isolated, pathetic man. Much like the father in Mosquito Coast who succeeded in isolating himself to such an extent that his own family finally caught on that he was a loon.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #53)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:14 PM

60. I won't concede to your argument that he's lonely or isolated or pathetic.

Because I don't care if what you say of him is true or not true, that is precisely why I have no need to concede to your statements in some sort of grand gesture of understanding. The truth is that I don't understand your posturing here. It doesn't make sense to me except within the context of someone who is trying very deeply to believe what they say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #60)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:22 PM

64. See my sig line.

 

Tonight is only about a busy week at work, a couple glasses of wine and two daughters who continue to surprise and inspire me.

There is no 'posturing' about me. None that I can see, although I'm probably the least objective observer of myself.

A year has gone by. And still Snowden is trying to convince us of his relevance. It's Russ Tice all over again. The guy who insisted someone he worked with was a double agent despite his colleagues telling him he was wrong. The guy who finally got Congress to agree to a public hearing and then unaccountably didn't show. (He showed up at a later, 2nd hearing.)

Guys like Snowden and Tice "come with baggage", as they say. They are not to be trusted because they can't see outside their own heads.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #64)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:27 PM

66. Okay, so for the sake of the discussion we are having, let us say what you're arguing is true...

That these types of individuals should not be trusted.

Does this somehow inspire you to place any trust in agencies like the NSA or CIA? Do you trust these agencies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #66)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:34 PM

68. Of course I don't trust them. They're run by human beings!

 

And as such are subject to flaws and mis-steps and outright deceit. They have self-reported many violations to the FISA court. Which I understand is another subject.

But I don't get 'down' on the FBI or the CIA or Interpol or my local police precinct without some reason to suspect them of nefarious activity.

Without evidence, all this endless 'celebration' of the NSA's evil intentions seems pathetic to me. And that's what this is to many. They want to see a more visible enemy than the hazy ones that are hardest to overcome: politicians, elections and laws.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #68)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:46 PM

70. I would argue just the opposite. That the clear enemy in public consciousness...

Is the politician. Politicians have always been hated and very often for just cause; but often for simply existing as a politician.

What entities haven't really been hated by the general public? Those which either don't really exist at all, they are clandestine, or those which veil their contempt under the guise of nationalism. I think it's easier to see through the actions of an individual. It's much harder to see through the actions of a large agency like the NSA or CIA. Yes, the NSA and CIA are made up of people. But kind of in a similar way to how the human body is made up of cells. It's the body which possesses the force and intelligence, even though it could not exist without the cells.

The same goes for these agencies. They aren't just collections of human beings. They are mechanisms with a driving force. What is the force driving the NSA or CIA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #53)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 05:34 PM

116. here we go yet again!

Painting the dissenting whistleblower as mentally unstable. Lonely, isolated, pathetic loon.

This is disgusting stuff. Just disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #116)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:24 PM

123. It's the truth.

 

The man left not one single friend behind. Not one. He couldn't even establish a relationship with his pole-dancing girlfriend! Tell me, without taking into account anything about the NSA, does that not sound like an emotionally isolated man?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #123)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:34 PM

129. it's your characterization and your opinion.

And even if it were true, without taking into account anything about the NSA, what freaking business would it be of yours?

I don't understand why you express resentment about his personal life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #129)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:38 PM

131. Because there is nothing that S&G have shown that is not subject to interpretation.

 

Absent a smoking gun or solid evidence of some sort, the narrative always turns to personalities.

These two keep telling us, "Believe what we're telling you!" If they don't have solid evidence to back up their insinuations, then of course we start looking at motivations. And personalities. And agendas.

That's only normal. If Chicken Little was telling us the sky was falling, we would want some evidence of that or we would write him off as a loon.

How many more years will it take before S&G release the kraken?

We are now into The Snowden Affair: Year 2. Good God!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #123)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:43 PM

135. Honestly, why is it at all relevant that she pole dances?

Any substance that may exist in your protest is completely buried under red-herrings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #135)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:50 PM

138. Fine. He couldn't establish a relationship with either men or women!

 

Is that better?

Not. One. Single. Friend.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #138)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:51 PM

139. That's actually much better. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #43)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 09:49 PM

48. That's because all of the evidence ...

... was put on a plane headed for Moscow, but somehow wound up in Copenhagen instead.

Funny how so many people who scoffed at BushCo's attempts to play on people's fears are the very same people who have been taken in by Snowden and GG's attempts to do exactly the same thing - and without one iota of proof to back up their claims.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #48)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:09 PM

58. It used to be amusing. Now it's become pathetic.

 

It's like hearing that any day now, Occupy will conquer the world. I wish someone would conquer the world but it's plain as day it won't be Occupy.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #58)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 11:00 PM

72. Agreed.

I read very little DU nowadays - except for the ongoing Snowden Saga, which I find fascinating.

The folks who latched onto him within 24 hours of learning his name - aside from the fact that they knew nothing of the man, and had no way of assessing his credibility - have simply refused to budge from their initial hero-worship. In fact, every revelation of his contradictory statements, or his outright lies, make them dig their heels in even deeper.

It's quite a phenomenon. The people who yell "don't trust anything the gov't tells you" are those who believe everything they hear from Snowden or GG - no proof required, no evidence needed.

As I said before, those who brag about their "healthy skepticism" when it comes to believing anything are the same people who have abandoned all skepticism when it comes to Eddie and Glen.

I, like you, await the great "Fireworks Display" - and when it turns out to be two kids on the corner holding a fizzled-out sparkler, the posts will abound about what an incredible display it really was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #25)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 11:37 AM

89. There is a pattern here.

The poster's response to anyone's comments are that they are stupid, unserious, not "good" enough...there's absolutely no attempt to address the points made--just "I'm smart and you're not" and "You aren't being SEEEERIOUS"--it's a major fail, repeated throughout the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #89)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 02:08 PM

107. because they are Ideologues and Anarchists

 

That just hate govt in general...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #107)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 02:54 PM

109. I'm an anarchist? That's news to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #109)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 02:58 PM

111. that wasnt the only option suggested was it?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #111)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 03:45 PM

112. Since that poster was talking about me, you must think I am both.

How am I an ideologue? And why do you think I'm an anarchist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #112)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 04:28 PM

114. if the shoe fits...

 

Just look up the definition to undrrstand...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #114)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 05:32 PM

115. First off, I am by self proclamation not an anarchist. So that is moot.

Second, I know the definition of an ideologue. I just would like to know why you think I am one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #115)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 11:02 PM

141. Some things are self evident...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VanillaRhapsody (Reply #141)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 11:23 PM

142. The only thing that is self-evident is the existence of your own subjective reality.

Beyond that, nothing is self-evident.

Are you arguing that the evidence for me being an anarchist and and ideologue is easily observed and does not demand further elaboration? That is by definition not self-evidence. It simply means you personally have experienced what you believe to be evidence of my anarchism and ideology. If someone asks you, like I have, to provide evidence for your belief, deferring to the argument of self-evidence is an untenable position.

Am I demanding that you defend all positions you personally believe to be self-evident? No. But self-evidence becomes an irrelevant factor once you make public judgments. Believing deeply that I am an anarchist and an ideologue is a perfectly reasonable position as long as you keep it to yourself. The moment you decide to form accusation from your belief is exactly the point when evidence is necessary.

Again, I ask, what is your evidence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #142)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 07:56 AM

156. took an awful lot of words just to say that.....

 

me thinks thou protest too much!

i·de·o·logue
ˈīdēəˌlôg,-ˌläg,ˈidēə-/Submit
noun
an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.

(also known as someone who would let the good be the enemy of the perfect)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #22)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 11:35 AM

88. I can't help but notice you keep telling people to STFU. You aren't answering any of their points,

you're just "belittling" their "arguments." Only YOU are "serious," everyone else isn't cutting the mustard.

Sorry--your schtick is becoming obvious. You repeat it throughout this thread, and I just gotta point it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #88)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 01:20 PM

90. No, I never said everyone else is not serious. I made specific objections...

To specific posters.

Again, is telling someone to stop obstructing conversation censorship?

The posters who I am taking to are trying to delegitimize the discussion by mocking members of this board. That is not acceptable conduct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #90)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 04:11 AM

145. You aren't refuting any of the points made.

You're focusing on personalities.

All one has to do is read this thread and it is painfully apparent. This one isn't serious, this one uses pictures and mockery to make a point, waah, waah, waah. Respond to the points made, spend less time playing the English teacher criticizing how the point is made, why doncha? You're trying to shut down discussion by boring people to death with finger wags about their "style," avoiding refuting the issues raised, and instead focusing on how the issues are presented.

It's a fail, that tactic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #145)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 04:18 AM

148. The semantic structure of an argument is intertwined with the conditions.

In other words, how you make an argument is just as important as what the argument is, not because you're trying to motivate others but because how you make an argument says a lot about you.

So, if someone had maturely and rationally presented skepticism of Snowden's claims, or even accused him of lying, I would have been happy to discuss the matter. Precisely because I'm interested in knowing what actually happened rather than maintaining a preconceived narrative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #148)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 04:27 AM

149. The points that have been made are quite straightforward.

Semantic structure is only an issue if it's being used to avoid answering those straightforward points.

You say this:

So, if someone had maturely and rationally presented skepticism of Snowden's claims, or even accused him of lying, I would have been happy to discuss the matter. Precisely because I'm interested in knowing what actually happened rather than maintaining a preconceived narrative.


And that IS what people have done. Maybe it wasn't "mature enough" or "rational enough" for you, but it was for the rest of us here in the peanut gallery. And all you did was gripe about the way the points were raised--which suggests, true or not, that you really didn't want to engage in discussion of these subjects, you just wanted to neutralize the individuals raising them.

How you make an argument is only important when the issues raised are terribly complex, and that's not the case here. The Boy Genius who copied thousands of documents couldn't copy his own damn emails? I mean--come on. That's a pretty SIMPLE concept. The "Big News Coming Soon!!" "Big News Coming Soon--I Meeeeean it!!!!" proclamations from Greenwald The Monetizer of National Security Secrets is not a very straightforward and valid thing to mention?

I mean, come on--stop talking about how you don't like how people present their arguments. It's coming off as an avoidance strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #149)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 04:37 AM

152. I didn't want to engage in the childish banter of a group which has an ideological drive...

To see Snowden and Greenwald destroyed. Therefore, their protest wasn't a debate. It was, as I've said over and over again, insult and mockery.

I will not take part in such things. But I will criticize those who do and hope a few snap out of it. That's what doesn't seem to happen often around her. There's a lot of ideological entrenchment and a lot of accusatory argumentation. There isn't much fully blown debate on the subject. Precisely because both sides have preconceived narratives to maintain.

I feel, as I'm sure many, many others on this board and in the world, that we're just out here waiting for the circus to end so we can gain something meaningful out of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #152)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 05:08 AM

153. If you "don't want to engage," then just back away. You have options.

One person's "childish banter" is another person's "incisive snark."

What is "insult and mockery" to you is a "damn fine point, cleverly made" to another. I'm not seeing what you're seeing. I'm sure I'm not the only one, either.

The "Elements of Style" approach you keep taking is a fail. It has become very obvious that you use that tactic as a substitute for saying "I don't hold the same view you are holding," and all of that crap about how people express themselves is just chaff.

This certainly is a circus, Snowden and Greenwald are the clowns in the center ring, the only mystery at this point is who is driving the clown car, those two, Putin, or someone else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #22)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 01:29 PM

96. And again, from a very wise duer.

 

"the person who tries to belittle the discussion is the censor."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #96)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 01:31 PM

97. How am I belittling these posters?

Let's start there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #97)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 01:33 PM

99. In the exact same manner that you tried to claim belittlement.

 

Others points have been clear. You act like they aren't. Sorry if you don't see the blatant hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #99)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 01:39 PM

100. No, no, no. You don't get off the hook for this one...

You say I'm belittling others by doing what I think others are doing. What is it exactly that I'm doing that belittles others?

You made the claim, now back it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #17)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 02:07 PM

106. Is that on alternate days? On other days they seem to be TRAITORS!

 

The only consistency appears to be: focus on attacking people, rather than discussing events or ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #106)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:34 PM

130. When there is no evidence, only vague insinuations, of course the narrative turns to personalities.

 

That's just human nature. If S&G want us to believe in something, they need something more than Powerpoint slides!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #130)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:47 PM

137. "That's just human nature."

There are a lot of things which may be categorized as being part of "human nature" that are unhealthy and irrational. For instance, greed and prejudice may be considered part of human nature. That doesn't mean you should inform your argumentation skills from either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #137)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:57 PM

140. In this case, I don't see it as 'unhealthy' or 'irrational' to expect proof from these two bozos.

 

Is that really asking for too much that they produce something other than what the NSA is capable of doing or what the NSA is doing overseas?

Year 2. How much longer can some of you hold your breath?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #17)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 11:34 PM

143. But you did not answer his question

Why should the NSA have any credibility when they make that statement?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #143)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 05:59 AM

155. We're going into Year 2 here!

 

And still nothing but vague insinuations. "Oh, look here, everyone! This is what the NSA could be doing to you! Because, you know...technology and stuff!"

I have no 'faith' in the NSA nor in any other human endeavor. That includes the S&G Show, no matter how many years it continues to run.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The night is always young. It's never too late.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gravitycollapse (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:34 PM

19. because Obama n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:38 PM

23. So? NSA's never reported what Bush knew about bin Laden before 9-11.

Although what NSA has reported, Bush has a lot to answer for under oath.



New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims

“I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released," an expert tells Salon

By Jordan Michael Smith
Salon.com
Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 04:24 PM EDT

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.

The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.

SNIP...

Former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has taken credit for the drone program that the Bush administration ignored. “Things like working to get an armed Predator that actually turned out to be extraordinarily important, working to get a strategy that would allow us to get better cooperation from Pakistan and from the Central Asians,” she said in 2006. “We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida.” Rice claimed that the Bush administration continued the Clinton administration’s counterterrorism policies, a claim the documents disprove. “If the administration wanted to get it done, I’m sure they could have gotten it done,” says Elias-Sanborn.

Many of the documents publicize for the first time what was first made clear in the 9/11 Commission: The White House received a truly remarkable amount of warnings that al-Qaida was trying to attack the United States. From June to September 2001, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. One from June called “Bin-Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” writes that “[redacted] expects Usama Bin Laden to launch multiple attacks over the coming days.” The famous August brief called “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike the US” is included. “Al-Qai’da members, including some US citizens, have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure here,” it says. During the entire month of August, President Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Texas — which tied with one of Richard Nixon’s as the longest vacation ever taken by a president. CIA Director George Tenet has said he didn’t speak to Bush once that month, describing the president as being “on leave.” Bush did not hold a Principals’ meeting on terrorism until September 4, 2001, having downgraded the meetings to a deputies’ meeting, which then-counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has repeatedly said slowed down anti-Bin Laden efforts “enormously, by months.”

CONTINUED w LINKS...

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_nsa_docs_reveal_911_truths/

IMFO, this is more important to know, for democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:07 PM

55. Bush and cheney should be punished for their negligence.

A lot more should be released and highlighted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #23)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 12:50 AM

78. That will be ignored, it goes against the narrative being played out by desperate people.

 

Sad but predictable as the sun rising and setting. They have no shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 07:53 PM

33. The NSA also hasn't stopped a single terrorist attack by their own admission.

 

Oh and they claimed they didn't have any Snowden emails... until they did.



The NSA works for the transnational corporate elite. I'm guessing Snowden was locked out of retrieving his work emails almost immediately as the elite frantically worked to figure out what was going on. Whatever evidence remains of Snowden's complaints, pre-intelligence release, are LONG gone.... either purposefully or as classified documents disappeared into the system.

Face it, the NSA exists as an arm of US global economic hegemony. Its not about our "security" at all. Its about enriching the 1% who will do and say anything to retain their intelligence gathering for their business deals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #33)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 09:55 PM

49. The NSA never claimed ...

... that they didn't have "any Snowden emails". They've said that they have no emails from Snowden raising the concerns that he later claimed he did raise.

Again, it would seem obvious that if such emails were sent, the boy genius would have ensured that he'd kept copies of any and all correspondence that would serve to prove that such communications took place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #49)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:17 PM

62. But notice how much congress now is concerned about the NSA?? Snowden did a GREAT thing! n-t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:00 PM

51. Most of these agencies have little credibility with me. They lie and distort so damn

much it's hard to believe anything they say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:01 PM

52. Doesn't matter...Wizner already moved the goalposts

When Snowden got called on this last month...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #52)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 03:41 AM

82. Bottom line, though.. "Boy Genius" is a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:07 PM

56. Though I don't care for Snowdon, I am just flat disgusted by the NSA.

If an independent court, say the one in the Hague, is given complete access to NSA files, and announces that the NSA is telling the truth about this, I will give the NSA a little credit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:41 PM

69. The NSA does not represent the people of this country.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 11:16 PM

74. This again? Went thru this identical bulls*** 2 weeks ago

 

I wonder why Julian Hattem had this 'published' on "thehill" on 6/25. Where has she been and why the same old deniers answering in the same way? Hope you find something new and/or definitive - or at least not derivative - soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elias49 (Reply #74)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 01:33 PM

98. Because the first FOIA was answered.....did you not read the article?

 

The prior email had been released by the NSA, but not pursuant to any FOIA.

This FOIA was answered on the 23rd....so tell us why it should not be in the news????



https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1208308-nsa-foia-snowden-emails-no-responsive-records.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 12:46 AM

77. Well if you can't trust the people spying on you, who can you trust?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #77)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 03:04 AM

80. Well, if you can't trust the people ...

... who are telling you you're being spied upon, who can you trust?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skip Intro (Reply #77)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 04:35 AM

83. All Snowden has to do is.. Produce. But, he can't because he lied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 12:52 AM

79. This from an agency illustrious for its truth telling and openness.

 

rofl: :

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 03:28 AM

81. Duh. SNOWDEN doesn't even have a record of Snowden challenging the NSA program

That sad little email that he released a while ago notwithstanding, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 05:21 AM

84. Actually, scoring by catching "lies" seems like a losing tactic for you on this one.

The harsh glare of daylight does seem to have it in for your NSA pals....here are a small sample of THEIR demonstrated lies

1) The NSA Does Not Collect Data From "Millions of Americans" – James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

2) "These programs together with other intelligence have protected the US and our allies from terrorist threats across the globe, to include helping prevent potential terrorist events over fifty times since 9/11." – Keith Alexander, NSA Chief

3) "Only persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States are targeted ... and all intended recipients are known to be located in the United States." – Kathleen Turner, Director of Legislative Affairs

4) "NSA acquires valuable information through its upstream collection, but not without substantial intrusions on Fourth Amendment protected interests." – U.S. District Judge John Bates

Note: Bates, the CHIEF JUDGE for FISC, says the NSA lied to him. So much for that vaunted JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT!!!!

5) "... to conduct that kind of collection in the United States [the NSA] would have to go through a court order, and the court would have to authorize it. We're not authorized to do it, nor do we do it." - James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

6) "We are not 'rifling' through the emails of Europe's Citizens." – President Barack Obama

If my intelligence service lied to me so that I said a nontruth, I would actually be rather pissed personally.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 01:22 PM

91. I was told multiple times that this was Snowdens big gotcha.

 

That the US wouldn't respond to this because they knew the truth, and if they lied Snowden would call them on it immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #91)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:21 PM

122. Yep it's all a bunch of BS

How so many here can fall for this BS is beyond me. I agree that "IF" the NSA lied, Snowden should be able to prove that they lied, and his silence pretty much says it all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 01:41 PM

101. I wouldn't believe the NSA if they happened to accidentally tell the truth!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 01:44 PM

102. In my humble opinion

He probably did not complain to anyone, because that would have labeled him as someone who needed to be watched more closely. A security risk.

It would have made it more difficult for him to carry out his plans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 02:20 PM

108. Right now, this OP has 107 responses and 8 recs

 

A great synopsis of how DU feels about this issue.

Not too many trust anything from the government anymore, which is an awful state of affairs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #108)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:26 PM

124. Really

I don't think the majority of americans trust Greenwald of Snowden either, what's your point? Facts are facts no matter who many recs a post gets. Hell some of the dumbest post I have ever read have hundreds of recs, but they are still dumb!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Andy823 (Reply #124)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:29 PM

126. I think most DUers (and others) trust Greenwald and Snowden far more than the federal government.

 

Sounds like an interesting poll, stay tuned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #126)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:31 PM

127. Stay tuned for another year?

 

And maybe another year after that? How long does this sitcom go on?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #127)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 11:22 AM

162. Exactly

It's all BS plain and simple. As long as there are gullible people who accept these two as their heroes, they will keep on stringing this out and in Greenwalds case, milking them to sell his book. The old saying there is a sucker born every minute sure seems to fit when it comes to buying into the BS being spewed by GG and Snowden. Of course I also have noticed that their followers seem to be the same bunch who constantly attack the president on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:33 PM

128. NSA = No Credibility

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Fri Jun 27, 2014, 09:42 PM

134. I wonder if they're going to say that they lost a bunch of emails when some individual user's hard

drive crashed and it's not their fault, their IT guys just don't know how to administer system backups.

Maybe they'll claim they only have the ability to back up their emails for 3-6 months before overwriting and reusing the tapes.

In any case, they have zero credibility so even if they're telling the truth, no one is going to believe them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #134)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 03:43 PM

163. Nope different agencies have different backup methods. Different parts of different agencies have

 

different backup methods.

The IRS really did have a 6 month tape backup rotation of emails that wasnt changed until 2013.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #163)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 03:53 PM

164. Yes, the IT had this policy

Despite requiring companies to keep THEIR records for 7 years and sarbannes oxley requiring everyone else to keep them for MUCH longer. This policy SHOULD have been changes long before 2013.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not blaming the administration for this, but this is unbelievably incompetent IT management from the ONE organization that should understand the importance of keeping records.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #164)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 03:58 PM

165. The IRS' email is not a particularly critical system. Makes sense its the last one to be upgraded

 

at the IRS. As antiquated as it was, it took a combination of issues for it to fail enough to matter and even then, it only matters in a ridiculous claim by Republicans geared at manufacturing outrage against this administration when documents show that more Liberal/Progressive groups were targeted.

I understand where you are coming from, but everything about the IRS scandal is silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 04:31 AM

151. Interesting. Useless, but interesting.

 

I don't think too many at DU are foolish enough to believe the utterances of liars. Anyway, how've you been, CDem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 05:25 AM

154. Oh,I believe, I believe,I believe....

please note: heavy dose of sarcasm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 09:13 AM

157. Release all sources, agents, methods, and revenue streams BURN IT.

Our surveillance and covert systems are a greater threat to self determination and our rights than any they supposedly protect us from.

Burn it and start over from scratch.

I don't give a shit if he raised concerns, it fact since it would seem dangerously stupid to do so, I see no benefit for Snowden to have done so, I'm inclined to guess he did.

"Fuck no, I grabbed what I could and got the Hell outta Dodge" seems a perfectly reasonable response to me. I see no value and upside to emailing any concerns, all that would do is put you on the radar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 09:15 AM

158. The NSA are proven liars. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 09:20 AM

159. Yes, and without a serious good faith effort to go through regular channels, Snowden is a criminal.

 

It's as simple as that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 10:13 AM

160. We searched our secret documents and found nothing that implicates us of wrong doing

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)

Sat Jun 28, 2014, 10:15 AM

161. Uh huh, uh huh, uh huh.. And the NSA would NEVER lie to us...

....






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread